"Senate Democrats Request More Alito Info": Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, " Senate Democrats on Thursday called for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito to provide them with more information about his time as a federal judge and a government lawyer, citing 'questions that seem to have incomplete answers.'"Posted at 06:05 PM by Howard Bashman

"RIM and NTP Resume Settlement Talks": The Associated Press provides a report that begins, "BlackBerry maker Research in Motion Ltd. has resumed settlement talks with NTP Inc. through a mediator, bolstering hopes for a truce in a patent battle that has threatened the popular BlackBerry e-mail service."Posted at 04:14 PM by Howard Bashman

Access online the text of the revised, prospective-only proposed Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which the Judicial Conference of the United States transmitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on November 29, 2005: Newly revised FRAP 32.1 can be viewed at this link. My December 2005 monthly appellate column, to be published next Monday in The Legal Intelligencer, will explain why the Supreme Court should strike from the proposed rule the newly-added prospective-only limitation.Posted at 03:30 PM by Howard Bashman

"Knight-Ridder distorts Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito's 15-year record on the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals": The Senate Republican Conference issued this news release yesterday. And Stephen Henderson, one of the co-authors of the article, appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio show yesterday (transcript here) to discuss the article and Henderson's recent C-SPAN appearance (RealPlayer required) concerning the article.

In an opinion by Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, the court today granted a writ of habeas corpus vacating the death sentence imposed on a "not a nice man" convicted of murder in Washington State because the state trial court had unlawfully dismissed for cause a juror who "expressed no antipathy toward the death penalty."

The final sentence of the opinion's opening paragraph states, "Because we conclude that the District Court improperly set aside applicable Supreme Court precedent which has repeatedly upheld federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity in the face of both First Amendment and substantive due process attacks, we will reverse the judgment of the District Court." The district court's ruling, which the Third Circuit reversed today, can be accessed at this link.

While obscenity prosecutions are up, the Justice Department faced a major setback in January, on the day of President Bush's inauguration. A federal district judge in Pennsylvania dismissed an obscenity case against one porn company, Extreme Associates, which produces the most offensive types of pornography, including scenes that involve violence, urination and simulated rape.

In his decision, Judge Gary Lancaster cited a recent Supreme Court decision, in Lawrence v. Texas, that claimed a Texas ban on consensual sodomy violated the constitutional rights of adults. Lancaster ruled that the same legal reasoning all but nullified the rationale behind many obscenity laws. "After Lawrence," the judge wrote, "the government can no longer rely on the advancement of a moral code, i.e., preventing consenting adults from entertaining lewd and lascivious thoughts, as a legitimate, let alone compelling, state interest."

That ruling, if it is upheld on appeal, could be a death knell to the principal legal remedy pornography opponents now have.

"Blood-Clot Victims Lose Appeal in Case": The Associated Press provides a report that begins, "Britain's highest court of appeal, the House of Lords, on Thursday ruled against airline passengers who suffered potentially fatal blood clots linked to air travel, rejecting their efforts to sue the airlines for compensation."

You can access today's ruling of the House of Lords at this link. The lead opinion begins, "This litigation has raised once again, albeit in a fairly new context, the question as to the scope that should be given to the term 'accident' in article 17 of the Warsaw Convention 1929."Posted at 11:10 AM by Howard Bashman

Thursday, December 8, 2005

"Chief justice sits out cases on pay raise; Two judges this week asked the high court to reinstate the increase; Ralph J. Cappy had praised the initial action":This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer. The newspaper has also posted online a copy of the pleading asking the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to take immediate jurisdiction over the judicial pay raise repeal challenge.

"Of Essays and Guns": At "PrawfsBlawg," Will Baude has a lengthy post that begins, "Via Howard Bashman, I see that David J. Garrow has in the newest issue of the The Green Bag, a review of Jack Balkin, et. al.'s, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said." My post linking to the review is here.Posted at 10:38 AM by Howard Bashman

Thursday, December 8, 2005

"Muddy Waters: Alito v. Alito on abortion." Ryan Lizza will have this TRB essay (pass-through link) in the December 19, 2005 issue of The New Republic.Posted at 10:33 AM by Howard Bashman

Thursday, December 8, 2005

"A victory for Mumia: A court rules that Mumia Abu-Jamal can appeal his murder conviction on three separate grounds." Dave Lindorff provides this report at Salon.com.Posted at 10:28 AM by Howard Bashman

Thursday, December 8, 2005

"British Court Rules in Torture Case": The Associated Press provides a report that begins, "Britain's highest court ruled Thursday that evidence obtained in other countries through torture may not be used in British courts."

"Two New Bomb Threats Delay Court Openings": The Hartford Courant today contains an article reporting that yesterday was "the fourth straight business day that bomb threats have closed some courthouses in the state."Posted at 09:05 AM by Howard Bashman

Thursday, December 8, 2005

"Prop. 77 is back in court; Justices say wording should be mulled, despite its defeat":This article appears today in The Sacramento Bee.

In commentary, The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled "Flawed legal logic" that remarks, "We are sympathetic to the schools' impulse to protest the policy, but their constitutional argument is embarrassingly weak."

"Failed case seen as blow to terror war; But many Muslim-Americans see the acquittal of Sami al-Arian as a vindication of US justice": Warren Richey will have this article Thursday in The Christian Science Monitor. Earlier today, I collected additional coverage here.Posted at 05:15 PM by Howard Bashman